Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sound reproduction versus Sound Production

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:11:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.

My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

Holding everything constant, mics, preamp, room ambiance, ... why would
I want to add any effects to the final recording? i.e. reverb, delay,
highpass/lowpass filters ...

I could, perhaps, see the need for a filter to control for noise but I
always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix. To me this seems
like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
sound reproduction.

I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
recording without any post-production.

Should I start a Dogme95 for audio or I'm I missing some fundemental
aspects of sound reporduction?

Lance
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:11:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You're weird. You want accurate, rather than "musical" reproduction? Hah! You'd
never get a job reviewing at one of the audiophile mags.

Simply-miked stereo recordings inherently sound "distant" and overly
reverberant. To reasonably approximate the original sound, you need to record in
a relatively dead room, relatively close to the guitar.

No processing. Mics to preamp to recorder.


Lance Hoffmeyer wrote...

> Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
> questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.

> My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely
> as possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
> equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
> playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

> Holding everything constant, mics, preamp, room ambiance, ...
> why would I want to add any effects to the final recording?
> i.e. reverb, delay, highpass/lowpass filters ...

> I could, perhaps, see the need for a filter to control for noise but I
> always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
> perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix. To me this seems
> like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
> sound reproduction.

> I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
> recording without any post-production.

> Should I start a Dogme95 for audio or I'm I missing some fundemental
> aspects of sound reporduction?
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:15:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Lance Hoffmeyer" <lance-news@augustmail.com> wrote in message
news:J9-dnQI4fbKxwY_cRVn-tg@august.net
> Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
> questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.
>
> My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
> possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
> equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
> playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

The classic way to do this is to make a very close-up recording with very
flat (e.g. measurement-grade) mic(s) in a very dead room (e,.g. anechoic
chamber). Mono might be in order. I find that playback on small,
wide-disperson speaker(s) with flat, smooth response helps complete the
illusion.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 5:10:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lance Hoffmeyer <lance-news@augustmail.com> wrote:
>My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
>possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
>equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
>playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

Well, I like that too. But to do that well is difficult, and requires a
very good room.

>I could, perhaps, see the need for a filter to control for noise but I
>always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
>perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix. To me this seems
>like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
>sound reproduction.

Right. And denoising systems tend to do more harm than good in that sort
of application too.

>I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
>recording without any post-production.
>
>Should I start a Dogme95 for audio or I'm I missing some fundemental
>aspects of sound reporduction?

No, that's fine. You're in the minority, but you certainly aren't the
only one.

Sadly, though, you will find that it is hard to sell recordings that
don't come across well on junk equipment. And minimalist recordings
tend to suffer the most on junk playback systems.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 9:23:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< I
always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix. To me this seems
like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
sound reproduction. >>

This is because recording is a very different art form than live performance &
many people prefer their recordings to sound like, well, recordings, with all
the polishing & perfecting of details that is entailed in that process, instead
of simply the raw instrument in front of you in the room.
Not to mention the unavoidable fact that no speaker system has ever been able
to accurately reproduce the sensation of being in a room with a real
instrument.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 10:33:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny and Scott as quoted below... Here Here!
(or would SOMEBODY tell me please is it "Hear Hear"?)

Welcome to the world of High Fidelity.
The final arbiter of 'Correct' here is your ear.
As said, a neutral, dead room (Neutral and Dead being two separate issues)
and an honest mic/preamp/recorder chain are the simple yet
difficult-to-amass tools you need at hand.
In lieu of head-on-expensive you can approach things from the side.
OMNI microphones are better at this... to where it's not stupid to overstate
the point as "any half-decent omni will sound more honest than nearly any
directional mic"... hence the oft-touted "get thee an EV 635a" for $35 used
rather than some seemingly-esoteric condensor. It's NOT about the mic nearly
so much as it's about the PLAYER then the INSTRUMENT then the PLACEMENT.

get as far back as you can -AND_ as close as you MUST.

no instrument radiates its full composite 'sound' from any one point on it's
body. The closer you get, the less of the instrument you hear... We hear the
sum of all its vibrations as conveyed to our ears in direct AND reflected
sounds. But how then explain the 'dead' room mandate?
Contradictions...
Ahhh nobody said this is easy.

STARTER KIT:
the dead/neutral room

an omni mic

an instrument

a player

a recordist


TECHNIQUE #1
have the player play
plug up one ear... walk around the instrument and point your remaining ear
at it and move up/dwn/everywhere until you find a place wjere you like what
you hear. Place mic there. record. listen to playback then apply (with
apologies to Sir A. C, Doyle) "Ears and Brains" and REPEAT

Again, thank you Dick Rosmini.




Arny Krueger at arnyk@hotpop.com wrote on 8/5/04 12:15 PM:
> The classic way to do this is to make a very close-up recording with very
> flat (e.g. measurement-grade) mic(s) in a very dead room (e,.g. anechoic
> chamber). Mono might be in order. I find that playback on small,
> wide-disperson speaker(s) with flat, smooth response helps complete the
> illusion.

Scott Dorsey at kludge@panix.com wrote on 8/5/04 1:10 PM:
> You're in the minority, but you certainly aren't the
> only one.
>
> Sadly, though, you will find that it is hard to sell recordings that
> don't come across well on junk equipment. And minimalist recordings
> tend to suffer the most on junk playback systems.
> --scott
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 10:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee wrote:


> (or would SOMEBODY tell me please is it "Hear Hear"?)


Very good. In fact, it is.
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 10:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

If you like the raw sound, then go for it. You will obviously need something
like the DPA mics and a very clean preamp.

On the other hand, you may want to perform some minimal processing if you're
expecting your end product to be played back on a range of systems (although
this is, obviously, best left for mastering).

If you're trying to sell yourself or your recordings, you will obviously
have to produce whatever the listener would like or expect to hear. If
they're expecting Eric Clapton, but you give them John Williams, they may be
disappointed.

If you're just recording for your own pleasure, then I guess you can do
whatever you want, and you don't need a newsgroup to tell you what to do.

Ryan
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 11:08:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Lance Hoffmeyer" <lance-news@augustmail.com> wrote in message...

> Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
> questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.

It's probably one of the most rational questions one might ask. After
all, you're not blaming the results on anything specific, like the limitations
of your room, your gear, your technique or your playback systems. You're
looking for the basics of why 'reproduction' is actually considered more of
an art than merely a skill derived from experimentation.

In all actuality, perfectly accurate reproduction is very nearly a total
impossibility. Getting 'close' is the best that most of us can ever hope
for. This is why many people just do their best to capture the performance
and then tend to use their experience in sound 'design' to aid in recreating
the closest possible interpretation of the instrument at the time of the
recording, to accompany that performance.

> My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
> possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
> equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
> playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

This has probably been the most sought after result of all the finest
engineers that have ever lived and taken their work seriously. There
are almost too many contributing factors to list in one response. So
suffice it to say, what you are seeking to accomplish is difficult to the
'Nth' degree. Compromises of some sort must usually come into play.

> Holding everything constant, mics, preamp, room ambiance, ... why
> would I want to add any effects to the final recording? i.e. reverb, delay,
> highpass/lowpass filters ...

You may not have to. This is the core of the can of worms which comes
along with this question.... Let's take just those first three items....

> mics

Virtually no microphone will 'hear' the sound of the guitar in the manner
in which the human ear does. A Jecklin Disc with cardioid mics placed
over your head and looking down at your guitar might come close to what
you are hearing as you play. This will of course, not sound like someone
is playing in front of you, but it might sound as if you're hearing your own
guitar playing. An 'omni' microphone will never sound like the guitar, as
it in no way mimics what the human ear actually perceives. Although to
capture the ambience of the room, this is often the best route... given that
a great deal of experimentation is required to balance the amount of room
ambience with the dry sound of the guitar. Stereo miking is also a bit on
the 'surreal' side if you want 'reality' in reproduction. The type and quality
of the mics used, their placement, and many more factors should lead
you to realize that perfection in 'reproduction' is really a great deal more
difficult than it may appear at first thought.

> preamp

Hopefully, you have chosen a pre-amp with the least tendency to add
'coloration' to the microphone used on the source. However, how the
microphone itself loads the inputs of the preamp can make another
huge difference in the effectiveness of the mic pre. Some mic pres
are well known to alter slightly the original source (depending again on
the compatibility of the mic with the pre), most especially preamps with
a tube involved in the circuit. To quickly summarize, how a specific mic
will interact with a specific preamp, will in and of itself, change the sound.
An SM-57 through a good and compatible mic pre will turn the 57 into a
small work of art - by the same token, a U-87 through a cheap preamp
can have detrimental results. All of these results are left to our own
interpretation as to their accuracy or acceptability.

> room ambiance

This is the real killer. I don't think it requires a great deal of logic or explanation
to understand that the room itself, it's shape, it's reflective characteristics,
where you are positioned in that room, and a dozen other factors from the
types of wall surfaces to the floor or floor coverings will affect the recorded
sound.... depending upon what type of mics are used, where they are placed,
and why. The distance of the mic (and the pattern of the mic) from the
instrument will determine how much of the ambience of the room will be
recorded... or at least what the degree of 'blend' is between the source and
the room sound. You can experiment with this for days, even weeks, but
really wouldn't be getting much closer to your original desire of hearing your
instrument as if someone is playing it right in front of you. Since every human
ear canal is slightly different, everyone will hear the result slightly differently.

What about stereo imaging? We have two ears... isn't that stereo? Well,
yes and no. It's two viewpoints to the same source which provide us with
information like location and distance of sources. Stereo requires 'balance'
with relation to a source, something we don't usually have provided to that
set of senses... and to a mono source, we're back to the basics of info
gathereed by two ears, not really stereo imaging.

One of the best recordings I've ever managed of a solo acoustic guitar was
by employing an accepted method but in a most unorthodox fashion. I used
a Jecklin Disc (omin mics) at about 6 feet from the player. This was after
trying all sorts of close miking (boomy and full of proximity effect) with a
variety of mics, as well as distant miking with great mics in a variety of
positions. Several of the takes could have been used, but not without
some of the post "production" which you mention. The 'artiste' wanted
a "One pass and I'm finished" recording. We spent more time experimenting
than if I had taken a good track and done a little of your 'production' and been
done with it.

> I could, perhaps, see the need for a filter to control for noise but I
> always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
> perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix.

You call this "production", which it is, but I prefer to call it 'sound design'.

One stands there and listens to the performance, and then recreates those
parts of the performance which the microphones did not capture well in the
same fashion as the human ear did. It's all pretty much a shot in the dark
unless you have a perfect environment, a massively talented engineer with
equipment that will not impede the process, and years of successful results
having trodden this path over and over and over again.

I'd rarely, if ever, place compression on a solo guitar performance. Other
factors you mention, like reverb, may be necessary to recreate the room
sound that was not adequately picked up by the microphone(s); even some
'pre' delay to mimick reflections from walls might be necessary; and whether
or not it is the 'purist' method of doing things, EQ (filtering) may be necessary
to smooth out the results obtained from the source after it has passed through
the entire signal chain.

> To me this seems
> like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
> sound reproduction.

If you choose to believe it or not, this is often the only way to get the job done.
Anything else requires virtual perfection in all aspects of the process. This is
what we all strive for, but the truth of the matter is that it is not something that
comes easily due to the immense number of variables.

> I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
> recording without any post-production.

Then you may have indeed found what some of us are still searching for.

It would appear to me that to accomplish this goal, you would need a very
good mono signal path for recording, and to play back the recorded material
from a mono speaker in the same room and from the same position in which
the instrument was initially recorded. If, in fact, you have captured exactly
what you want, you should be able to take your mono speaker for playback,
set it up in an anechoic chamber for listening, and still be satisfied with your
accomplishment. (OK, that's stretching it a little).

> Should I start a Dogme95 for audio or I'm I missing some fundemental
> aspects of sound reproduction?

I don't think you're missing much. I think you have to understand that in order
'reproduce' a sound, the mere act of recording it is in fact 'production'....
therefore the two will always be, to some degree, infinitely intertwined.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 12:25:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lance Hoffmeyer wrote:

> Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
> questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.
>
> My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
> possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
> equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
> playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.

I realize you are stating an opinion (which I agree with)
and not asking for advice but I just can't help myself.
Sounds like a perfect application for a Jecklin disk to me.
The baffle gives you reasonable stereo and the most
accurate mics you can find are the small omni's like the
Earthworks if you can get your signal far enough above their
self noise.

Not sure how well it works with quieter LDC omni's. Never
tried it.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:CAvQc.813$z9.24@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> In all actuality, perfectly accurate reproduction is very nearly a total
> impossibility. Getting 'close' is the best that most of us can ever hope
> for. This is why many people just do their best to capture the
performance
> and then tend to use their experience in sound 'design' to aid in
recreating
> the closest possible interpretation of the instrument at the time of the
> recording, to accompany that performance.
<snip>
> This has probably been the most sought after result of all the finest
> engineers that have ever lived and taken their work seriously. There
> are almost too many contributing factors to list in one response. So
> suffice it to say, what you are seeking to accomplish is difficult to the
> 'Nth' degree. Compromises of some sort must usually come into play.
<snip>
> One of the best recordings I've ever managed of a solo acoustic guitar was
> by employing an accepted method but in a most unorthodox fashion. I used
> a Jecklin Disc (omin mics) at about 6 feet from the player. This was
after
> trying all sorts of close miking (boomy and full of proximity effect) with
a
> variety of mics, as well as distant miking with great mics in a variety of
> positions. Several of the takes could have been used, but not without
> some of the post "production" which you mention. The 'artiste' wanted
> a "One pass and I'm finished" recording. We spent more time experimenting
> than if I had taken a good track and done a little of your 'production'
and been
> done with it.
<snip>
> > I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
> > recording without any post-production.
>
> Then you may have indeed found what some of us are still searching for.


So, David, or others - can you recommend any good examples or references of
this type of recording (particularly of acoustic guitar of some type)? Or
at least what you'd consider "close"...

Steve
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 1:06:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

JoVee wrote:

>Arny and Scott as quoted below... Here Here!
>(or would SOMEBODY tell me please is it "Hear Hear"?)

From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hear%20hear

hear, hear

An expression used to express approval, as in:

Whenever the senator spoke, he was greeted with cries of "Hear! hear!"

This expression was originally:

Hear him! hear him!

and used to call attention to a speaker's words. It gradually came to be
used simply as a cheer. [Late 1600s]

--
========================================================================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
mkesti@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 8:23:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Boy, this is somewhat of a loaded question...

Do you want to make an "accurate" recording or do you want to make a
recording that reflects your musicality to an audience? While not mutually
exclusive, it requires a perfect set of circumstances to do both right. You
need a fantastic room with fantastic mics, preamps, converters, and
recorders...

What I find when doing classical work- especially guitar work- is that we
get things as close as we can in the field and then we use whatever tools
are available to us in post to really polish the sound... This means that
reverb (at least a little bit) is added, and perhaps a bit of EQ is used...
Rarely will compression or limiting be used (unless there is a major
problem).

Recordings are an inherent lie. Microphones do not behave the way our ears
do and speakers or headphones never sound like the room so everything is an
approximation. How you arrive at a final product that you think works well
is up to you... If you really like the dry sound, then all the more power
to you. Keep your recording dry and you'll be happy. I personally find
that it doesn't match what the experience is while listening.

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Lance Hoffmeyer" <lance-news@augustmail.com> wrote in message ...
> Hopefully this isn't one of those annoying, inanswerable, or stupid
> questions. It has been bugging me for some time though.
>
> My goal is to reproduce the sound of my Classical Guitar as closely as
> possible on a recording as in actual real-time playing with the
> equipment I have. That is, when I play the recording back I want the
> playback to sound like someone is playing my guitar in front of me.
>
> Holding everything constant, mics, preamp, room ambiance, ... why would
> I want to add any effects to the final recording? i.e. reverb, delay,
> highpass/lowpass filters ...
>
> I could, perhaps, see the need for a filter to control for noise but I
> always see people (myself included at times) adding compression and
> perhaps reverb or other effects to their final mix. To me this seems
> like they are trying to create commercial sound production instead of
> sound reproduction.
>
> I love the raw, dry sound of a soundfile played back right after
> recording without any post-production.
>
> Should I start a Dogme95 for audio or I'm I missing some fundemental
> aspects of sound reporduction?
>
> Lance
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 8:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Recordings are an inherent lie.

Not Ambisonic SoundField recordings.
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 8:23:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10h7h634e65ipf7@corp.supernews.com>,
William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> Recordings are an inherent lie.
>
>Not Ambisonic SoundField recordings.

They're a lie too.

There isn't _really_ an orchestra behind those panels. It's all an
illusion.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 8:23:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>>> Recordings are an inherent lie.

>> Not Ambisonic SoundField recordings.

> They're a lie too.
> There isn't _really_ an orchestra behind those panels.
> It's all an illusion.

Maya.

That's not the context of the original discussion.

A SoundField recording, played back over good speakers, sounds very much as if
you are "really" at the original mic location. The problems that afflict
conventional stereo recording are virtually non-existant.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 3:56:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< A SoundField recording, played back over good speakers, sounds very much as
if
you are "really" at the original mic location. The problems that afflict
conventional stereo recording are virtually non-existant. >>

Regardless of the recording means, I maintain that no speaker can move air in a
room the way an instrument does.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 3:56:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> A SoundField recording, played back over good speakers, sounds very
>> much as if you are "really" at the original mic location. The problems
>> that afflict conventional stereo recording are virtually non-existant.

> Regardless of the recording means, I maintain that no speaker can move
> air in a room the way an instrument does.

This is a different issue. Bose used to have some blather about it.

It's a meaningless consideration. All (???) we want to do is move the air in
such a way that the home listener hears what he would have heard at the mic
position. How the _instruments_ move the air is of no consideration.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 3:56:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
>>> A SoundField recording, played back over good speakers, sounds very
>>> much as if you are "really" at the original mic location. The problems
>>> that afflict conventional stereo recording are virtually non-existant.
>
>> Regardless of the recording means, I maintain that no speaker can move
>> air in a room the way an instrument does.
>
>This is a different issue. Bose used to have some blather about it.
>
>It's a meaningless consideration. All (???) we want to do is move the air in
>such a way that the home listener hears what he would have heard at the mic
>position. How the _instruments_ move the air is of no consideration.

Yes, but I want to be able to move my head around and hear what I would
have heard at other positions as well.

But, all of this really is irrelevant. The point that the original poster
was making is that the whole process of recording and reproduction exists
to produce an illusion. You're just arguing about the accuracy of that
illusion. Either way it's not a real orchestra behind there, it's a
simulation, and that simulation only varies in degree.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 3:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Yes, but I want to be able to move my head around and hear
> what I would have heard at other positions as well.

Why? This is not a requirement for accurate reproduction.

Ambisonic playback provides this effect, to some degree, for both lateral and
front-back movement.


> But, all of this really is irrelevant. The point that the original poster
> was making is that the whole process of recording and reproduction
> exists to produce an illusion. You're just arguing about the accuracy
> of that illusion. Either way it's not a real orchestra behind there, it's a
> simulation, and that simulation only varies in degree.

I hate to jump on you for this, Scott, but such a view is just a lame excuse for
producing lousy-sounding recordings. See the interview with the world's leading
recording "experts" in the current Abso!ute Sound. They don't know what the hell
they're talking about. It's pathetic.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:49:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message ...

> A SoundField recording, played back over good speakers, sounds very much as if
> you are "really" at the original mic location. The problems that afflict
> conventional stereo recording are virtually non-existant.


Then perhaps you could answer Steve Scott's querry in this thread by
providing some examples of acoustic guitar recordings which are
reflective of near perfect accuracy in reproduction of the recorded
instrument.

I think no matter how accurately the recording was done, we enter a
whole new can of worms when dealing with playback systems.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:49:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
>Then perhaps you could answer Steve Scott's querry in this thread by
>providing some examples of acoustic guitar recordings which are
>reflective of near perfect accuracy in reproduction of the recorded
>instrument.

I will say that there are a couple of recordings on the Clarity label,
which are almost eerie in their reproduction of a natural guitar in a
room. Unfortunately the performers are all mediocre at best and I
would not recommend the recordings to anyone except as an example of
Jecklin disc recording configurations.

>I think no matter how accurately the recording was done, we enter a
>whole new can of worms when dealing with playback systems.

New? It's a very old can of worms....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 19:30:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>> Regardless of the recording means, I maintain that no speaker can move
>> air in a room the way an instrument does.

>It's a meaningless consideration. All (???) we want to do is move the air in
>such a way that the home listener hears what he would have heard at the mic
>position. How the _instruments_ move the air is of no consideration.

I suppose if you've nothing better to do on a Friday night you could
argue that reproducing the instrument would require that the speaker
duplicate the instrument's radiation pattern.

But then we still have the issue of the original room's acoustics and
the listening room's acoustics. And the issue of reproducing multiple
and different instruments.

Verbatim reproduction is a false god?

Today I videotaped two dresses and a performance for (mostly) proud
parents of the Britten "Noye's Fludde". You could say that each was
it's own reality to be captured, or you could say that the work is
still waiting somewhere. Or not.

Chris Hornbeck
"When you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:59:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I suppose if you've nothing better to do on a Friday night you could
> argue that reproducing the instrument would require that the speaker
> duplicate the instrument's radiation pattern.

Yes, if the playback is supposed to sound like that instrument IN THE ROOM WHERE
PLAYBACK OCCURS. But that isn't usually what we're interested in.


> Verbatim reproduction is a false god?

It's the right god, but few people want to worship.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:07:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< It's a meaningless consideration. All (???) we want to do is move the air in
such a way that the home listener hears what he would have heard at the mic
position. How the _instruments_ move the air is of no consideration. >>

Inasmuch as both an instrument & a speaker need to move air to be heard, & the
fact that no speaker can so convincingly emulate the instrument's propagation
of vibrations that we truly cannot distinguish the speaker from the instrument,
I'd say it is a consideration.
What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction) sounds
convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.

Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:07:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Inasmuch as both an instrument & a speaker need to move air to be heard, & the
> fact that no speaker can so convincingly emulate the instrument's propagation
> of vibrations that we truly cannot distinguish the speaker from the
instrument,
> I'd say it is a consideration.

You are confusing reproducing the original sound in a particular room with
producing the sound a specific instrument in the playback room. These are two
different philosophies, and nothing whatever to do with each other.


> What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction) sounds
> convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
> making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
> haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.

It IS achievable, with existing technology.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:07:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction) sounds
>>convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
>>making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
>>haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.
>
>
> It IS achievable, with existing technology.

No it isn't and not even approximately. First it could only
possibly work in the original room with nothing in it
having moved and even then it can't because there is
absolutely no way within the realm of the possible to
recreate the exact time varying pressure field at every
point in a room that existed there when generated in a
different way than by a loudspeaker. Too damn much
information by an enormous margin. Enormous isn't a big
enough word. All of that is required for versimilitude.

Plausible illusion is all that is possible and I doubt
anyone will complain if they are hearing something
believable and appropriate whether it is accurate or not.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 6 Aug 2004 22:40:17 -0400, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Yes, but I want to be able to move my head around and hear what I would
>have heard at other positions as well.

Maybe this is why I can't hear those dummy head / headphones
recordings. Just doesn't work for me.

Ooh! Ooh! I have a theory! Anybody wanna hear it? Hey, come back...

Chris Hornbeck
"It's a Zen thing, like how many babies fit in a tire."
- Corky St. Claire (Christopher Guest)
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:46:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:18:48 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>> I suppose if you've nothing better to do on a Friday night you could
>> argue that reproducing the instrument would require that the speaker
>> duplicate the instrument's radiation pattern.
>
>Yes, if the playback is supposed to sound like that instrument IN THE ROOM WHERE
>PLAYBACK OCCURS. But that isn't usually what we're interested in.

Your argument seems to be that transfering the instrument and the
original room into the listening room is possible because the direct
sound from the speakers dominates the listening experience. I
actually don't disagree with this.

I would not even disagree that the goal of verbatim reproduction
*should* ideally be to superimpose the original room onto the (given)
listening room. Just never been very convinced by any I've heard. Yet!


>> Verbatim reproduction is a false god?
>
>It's the right god, but few people want to worship.

The alternative god, that the emotional content is a separate thing
to be captured, is also very seductive. I wonder how much they really
conflict? Lots still to learn, for me.

Chris Hornbeck
"Amadeus II "Wolfie's Revenge!""
-William Sommerwerck
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 9:21:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< You are confusing reproducing the original sound in a particular room with
producing the sound a specific instrument in the playback room. These are two
different philosophies, and nothing whatever to do with each other.>>

I'm certainly failing to see what distinction you're drawing between two
scenarios that you say have nothing to do with one another.


> What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction)
sounds
> convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
> making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
> haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.>

<It IS achievable, with existing technology.>>

Spending the amount of time that I do with instruments in rooms, ranging from
tiny dressing rooms to very capacious performance venues, my opinion is quite
the opposite. Well, maybe a triangle played down the hall might be convincingly
reproduced by a speaker, but a violin, warming up 3 feet away in a green room,
not even close.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 10:27:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I would not even disagree that the goal of verbatim reproduction
> *should* ideally be to superimpose the original room onto the (given)
> listening room. Just never been very convinced by any I've heard. Yet!

If you use a good multi-channel synthesizer (such as the JVC or Yamahas), you
can plainly hear the "acoustics" changing as you adjust the controls or


>>> Verbatim reproduction is a false god?

>> It's the right god, but few people want to worship.

> The alternative god, that the emotional content is a separate thing
> to be captured, is also very seductive. I wonder how much they really
> conflict? Lots still to learn, for me.

You have pointed out exactly why the reviews of most subjective magazines (note
that I did NOT say "subjective reviewing") aren't very reliable.

Because we listen to music for pleasure, the tendency is to equate listening
enjoyment with accuracy. This is not only illogical, but backwards.

If the live sound is pleasing, then it follows that the accurate reproduction of
it must also be pleasing.

Of course, there are lots of way sound can be pleasing without being accurate.
Just as a painting can be pleasing without looking anything like the object it
represents.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 10:29:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> You are confusing reproducing the original sound in a particular room with
> producing the sound a specific instrument in the playback room. These are two
> different philosophies, and nothing whatever to do with each other.

> I'm certainly failing to see what distinction you're drawing between two
> scenarios that you say have nothing to do with one another.

They do have nothing to do with each other.

It is the difference between bringing you to the performance, and bringing the
peformance to you.

The former requires an acoustically dead recording, while the latter requires
correctly recording and reproducing the original ambience. Totally different.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 10:30:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >>What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction)
sounds
> >>convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
> >>making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
> >>haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.

> > It IS achievable, with existing technology.

> No it isn't and not even approximately.

Go out and make a B-format Ambisonic recording, as I've suggested (and have done
myself), then come back and we'll talk.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 11:11:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote in message ...
>
> > But, all of this really is irrelevant. The point that the original
poster
> > was making is that the whole process of recording and reproduction
> > exists to produce an illusion. You're just arguing about the accuracy
> > of that illusion. Either way it's not a real orchestra behind there,
it's a
> > simulation, and that simulation only varies in degree.
>
> I hate to jump on you for this, Scott, but such a view is just a lame
excuse for
> producing lousy-sounding recordings. See the interview with the world's
leading
> recording "experts" in the current Abso!ute Sound. They don't know what
the hell
> they're talking about. It's pathetic.
>

Blah, blah, blah... As I said. Recordings lie.

We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

--Ben


--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 11:11:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
> than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
> reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
> things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
> perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
> approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

If you would set up a W/X/Y Ambisonic array with really good mics, and play it
back through first-rate speakers, you'd be startled.

It is possible to come pretty damned close, in playback, to what you heard live.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 12:45:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Benjamin Maas <benmaas@nospamfifthcircle.com> wrote:
>
>Blah, blah, blah... As I said. Recordings lie.
>
>We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
>than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
>reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
>things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
>perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
>approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.

And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the listener,
so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is exactly equivalent
to the pressure at that point in the section of the original room around the
listener. Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
even have a very good approximation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 12:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
> three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the
> listener, so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is
> exactly equivalent to the pressure at that point in the section of the
> original room around the listener.

This is an "unreasonable" requirement, because it places an unnecessarily
complex requirement on the system. It would be "nice" to be able to move around
the room, but it isn't necessary.

I might add that I don't think what you're requesting is even theoretically
possible.


> Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
> even have a very good approximation.

B-format Ambisonics _is_ "a very good approximation."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 12:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
> three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the listener,
> so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is exactly equivalent
> to the pressure at that point in the section of the original room around the
> listener. Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
> even have a very good approximation.


How can that happen? The sound of the listening room will be
superimposed on the recording, unless you're suggesting anechoic living
rooms.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 5:03:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>>>What I'm really saying, though, is that since no speaker (reproduction)
>
> sounds
>
>>>>convincingly like an instrument (production), maybe we should concentrate on
>>>>making recordings we like the sound of & not be overly concerned that we
>>>>haven't achieved verisimilitude, which I maintain isn't achievable anyway.
>
>
>>>It IS achievable, with existing technology.
>
>
>>No it isn't and not even approximately.
>
>
> Go out and make a B-format Ambisonic recording, as I've suggested (and have done
> myself), then come back and we'll talk.
>

I understand Ambisonic theory and practice about as well as
anyone and at a deep level. I stand by my statement. All
the ambisonic mic does is attempt to measure the 0th and 1st
order components of the sound field at a single point. It
fails at this in practice for all kinds of reasons from LF
proximity effect to lack of real coincidence, to inacuracies
and mismatches above a certain, not very high, frequency limit.

It is difficult enough to reproduce that single point
condition, even if it were accurately measurable, at another
point in another room with speakers and then only if the
interaction of the speakers with the room has been
accurately characterized at that point and nothing in the
room ever changes.

This will not allow anything like versimilitude when a head
with ears on its side is placed at that same point or moved
or even rotated. It still sounds pretty darned good though.
Versimilitude is unnecessary. Plausible and appropriate
is good enough.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
August 7, 2004 5:30:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <10h9lq8f9r77593@corp.supernews.com>,
"William Sommerwerck" <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

> > We choose which lie we like the most and go with it. Some may be better
> > than others, but there is no way that a microphone and a speaker can
> > reproduce sound the way that our ear hears it. Ears are pretty amazing
> > things if you think about it. The way that they can pick up faint sound and
> > perceive directionality is pretty amazing. Speakers give us an
> > approximation, but it ain't the real thing. Period.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
>
> If you would set up a W/X/Y Ambisonic array with really good mics, and play
> it
> back through first-rate speakers, you'd be startled.
>
> It is possible to come pretty damned close, in playback, to what you heard
> live.
>

I am sorry but your wrong
There is no possibility that a collection of wires magnets and paper can
deviler to us anything even close to the experiance of sitting in a room
with a musician can
we settle for the best we can
but sound reproduction is like tofu steak
George
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 5:30:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

>> If you would set up a W/X/Y Ambisonic array with really good mics, and play
>> it back through first-rate speakers, you'd be startled.

> > It is possible to come pretty damned close, in playback, to what you heard
> > live.

> I am sorry but your wrong
> There is no possibility that a collection of wires magnets and paper can
> deviler to us anything even close to the experiance of sitting in a room
> with a musician can
> we settle for the best we can
> but sound reproduction is like tofu steak


I'VE DONE IT. YOU HAVEN'T. Don't make claims about something you've never
experienced.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 5:33:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> I understand Ambisonic theory and practice about as well as
> anyone and at a deep level. I stand by my statement. All
> the ambisonic mic does is attempt to measure the 0th and 1st
> order components of the sound field at a single point. It
> fails at this in practice for all kinds of reasons from LF
> proximity effect to lack of real coincidence, to inacuracies
> and mismatches above a certain, not very high, frequency limit.

UNDERSTANDING THEORY is one thing. ACTUALLY DOING IT is another. If you haven't
done it, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'm a great believer in theory. Theory is the basis for understanding
observations and placing them in a coherent context. But theory is only the
starting point. It must be followed by experiment and observation. If you
haven't done the latter, then you have NO RIGHT to comment on the validity or
utility of Ambisonic theory.

You're the sort of person who, if told that SX-70 photographs develop in broad
daylight without fogging, would have rejected it as impossible.

Almost 30 years ago, a young man from Australia, Trevor Lees, started a little
magazine in the US called Mr. Audio's bimonthly. He published some unusual
head-amp circuits using tubes.

He received a letter from the late Julius Futterman stating that the circuits
couldn't possibly work. Trevor's response was A: I've built these circuits and
they do work, or I wouldn't have published them; B: If you were going to
criticize the circuits, why didn't you build them first?

I have never met anyone who objected to or dismissed Ambisonics WHO HAD ACTUALLY
MADE AMBISONIC RECORDINGS.


> It is difficult enough to reproduce that single point
> condition, even if it were accurately measurable, at another
> point in another room with speakers and then only if the
> interaction of the speakers with the room has been
> accurately characterized at that point and nothing in the
> room ever changes.

Baloney. You're confusing "you are there" with "it is here."


> This will not allow anything like versimilitude when a head
> with ears on its side is placed at that same point or moved
> or even rotated. It still sounds pretty darned good though.
> Versimilitude is unnecessary. Plausible and appropriate
> is good enough.

You're pulling the same dirty intellectual game that everyone else who's never
actually HEARD good Ambisonic reproduction does. You set invalid performance
standards, then object that Ambisonics doesn't meet them.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:23:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

William Sommerwerck <williams@nwlink.com> wrote:
>> And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
>> three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the
>> listener, so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is
>> exactly equivalent to the pressure at that point in the section of the
>> original room around the listener.
>
>This is an "unreasonable" requirement, because it places an unnecessarily
>complex requirement on the system. It would be "nice" to be able to move around
>the room, but it isn't necessary.
>
>I might add that I don't think what you're requesting is even theoretically
>possible.

Stereo is basically a crude attempt at doing this. Sonic holography systems
come a lot closer to actually being able to do it in a three-dimensional
field.

I've heard some sonic holography system demos and been generally pleased
with localization, although I have not heard any that really attempts full
wideband reproduction yet.

>> Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
>> even have a very good approximation.
>
>B-format Ambisonics _is_ "a very good approximation."

It's not bad. It's better than stereo, but it's not identical to the source
yet. The illusion gets pretty good, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:28:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 06:27:08 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<williams@nwlink.com> wrote:

>If the live sound is pleasing, then it follows that the accurate reproduction of
>it must also be pleasing.
>
>Of course, there are lots of way sound can be pleasing without being accurate.
>Just as a painting can be pleasing without looking anything like the object it
>represents.

Is a photograph more accurate than a painting?

And what elements of a photograph do we value most? For some types of
photography we might value the "painterly" aspects; for other types,
the ability to distinguish small details; etc.

Given that all reproduction is inherently flawed, we must choose
among devils. No angels have applied for the job. Yet.

Chris Hornbeck
"Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now
for Congress and ultimately the American people." -Archibald Cox
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 6:28:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

S O'Neill <nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> And I will say that what we need is a way to totally reproduce the
>> three-dimensional wavefront coming from all directions toward the listener,
>> so that the actual pressure at any point in your room is exactly equivalent
>> to the pressure at that point in the section of the original room around the
>> listener. Until that happens (and it's going to happen someday), we don't
>> even have a very good approximation.
>
>
>How can that happen? The sound of the listening room will be
>superimposed on the recording, unless you're suggesting anechoic living
>rooms.

It would either have to be anechoic, or whatever sound source is employed
would have to compensate also for reflections from the room behind it,
yes. Not trivial to do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:00:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< It is the difference between bringing you to the performance, and bringing
the
peformance to you.
The former requires an acoustically dead recording, while the latter requires
correctly recording and reproducing the original ambience. Totally different.
>>

Someday you'll have to explain how you're seeing these as unrelated, because
I'm hearing you describe two variations of one activity. Somewhere we're
missing each other semantically.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:00:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> << It is the difference between bringing you to the performance, and bringing
> the
> peformance to you.
> The former requires an acoustically dead recording, while the latter requires
> correctly recording and reproducing the original ambience. Totally different.

> Someday you'll have to explain how you're seeing these as unrelated, because
> I'm hearing you describe two variations of one activity. Somewhere we're
> missing each other semantically.

It's not semantic at all -- unless you consider that there are no differences in
recording philosophies.

The issue of "bringing the listener to the performing venue" and "bringing the
performer to the listening room" is as old as sound reproduction.

I don't see how there can be any confusion between these two.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:09:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< we settle for the best we can
but sound reproduction is like tofu steak >>

In comparing reproduced sound to live instruments as equating a beefsteak with
tofu steak does a serious disservice to the noble soy bean, for tofu is no mere
facsimile of some truer, more real steak derived from the rumps of cattle.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:18:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<< Go out and make a B-format Ambisonic recording, as I've suggested (and have
done
myself), then come back and we'll talk.
>>

Fine, but that B Format recording has to play back through speakers, & that's
where the illusion utterly fails to convince. A violin in the room & speakers
playing that same violin performance simply are not going to be plausibly
interchangeable. The problem is not in obtaining a reasonable recording. The
problem is in transducing that recording.


Scott Fraser
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 7:18:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Fine, but that B Format recording has to play back through speakers, & that's
> where the illusion utterly fails to convince. A violin in the room & speakers
> playing that same violin performance simply are not going to be plausibly
> interchangeable. The problem is not in obtaining a reasonable recording. The
> problem is in transducing that recording.

But what if the playback sounds like the original venue? There's something wrong
with that?

To turn the argument around -- would you like to hear the climax of
Gotterdammerung in your living room? Who in their right mind would record it to
sound that way?
!